Skip to main content

I’ve crossed the Atlantic to be reasonable.

Dodsworth
(1936)

(SPOILERS) Prestige Samuel Goldwyn production – signifiers being attaching a reputable director, often William Wyler, to then-popular plays or classical literature, see also Dead End, Wuthering Heights, The Little Foxes, The Best Years of Our Lives, and earning a Best Picture nomination as a matter of course – that manages to be both engrossing and irritating. Which is to say that, in terms of characterisation, Dodsworth rather shows its years, expecting a level of engagement in the relationship between Sam Dodsworth (Walter Huston) and his wayward, fun-loving wife Fran (Ruth Chatterton) at odds with their unsympathetic behaviour.

Fran: I’m fighting for my life! You can’t drag me back!

There’s only so much of Sam being a walkover as his younger wife (but not that much younger), desperate to retain the illusion of youthful freedom, carries on with other men, one can take. So, even though he’s the injured party in this, he’s so much of a doormat that he loses our vote. Huston’s nevertheless very reliable, and likeable, as the retiree (from his firm Dodsworth Motors) who discovers life outside the business world to be rather vexing during a European trip as Fran engages in extended flirtations with younger men, first caddish Captain Lockert (David Niven) and then aristocratic Arnold Iselin (Paul Lukas).

Tubby: Would you lay off those European liberties with my wife?

Sidney Howard, who adapted his 1934 play, itself an adaptation of Sinclair Lewis’ 1929 novel, would go on to pen the likes of Raffles and Gone with the Wind, and Pauline Kael suggested the picture’s only problem was sticking too closely to the stage version (“It looks programmed and underpopulated, though in an elegantly stylised way”). It’s true that Dodsworth is very interior, and at times claustrophobic in sticking like glue to its main characters, but the issue is more one identified by Wyler, one he clashed with lead Chatterton over; Fran is an incredibly unsympathetic character (a “foolish horror”), whose utterly shallow obsession with her youth and retaining it for as long as possible ("You’ve got to let me have my fling now!") offers no chance of finding anything redeemable or relatable. Perhaps if Chatterton were comely (Fran refers to herself as “a wife who isn’t exactly plain”, but she has a face like a soup spoon), you might at least understand the attentions Mrs Dodsworth is getting from younger suitors, and her vain attempt to keep a hold of her most precious asset. Instead she just seems delusional, and the men keen on her idiots.

Sam: I’ve got nothing to do but look at ruined temples. They’ll keep. They’ve kept this long.

This in turn influences our view of Sam (a “true dreamer”). At first, his tolerance of his wife seems to be down to understanding the limits of the situation (“I suppose it’s up to me to go out and shoot him” he says drolly of Lockert’s indiscreet behaviour). There’s even a point when it looks as if he’s going to lay down the law (“I think I’ve been weak with you quite long enough”) before summarily wilting and retreating to New York. Only to then go and fetch her and be further rebuked. At this point, other factors come into play, illustrating the grotesque extent of Fran’s disregard for anything but herself. Their daughter is pregnant, but Mrs Dodsworth elects avoid returning home to see the baby, because it will be a stark reminder that she is now a grandma. Almost as damning is that Sam, very keen to see the wee tot, doesn’t go home anyway but instead decides to loaf around Europe; who’d want to be this pair’s offspring, given their response when you most need them to be there for you?

Fran: I hope I look as young as you do, when I’m your age.
Edith: You’re almost sure to, my dear.

This drag fortunately takes a turn when Sam falls in with the really rather nice Edith (Mary Astor, going through a highly scandalous, high profile divorce herself at the time), while Fran gets her comeuppance, told to sling her hook by Arnold’s overbearing mumsie (Maria Ouspenskaya, of The Wolf Man fame). Inevitably, this leads to an eleventh-hour call for Sam to return to his floozy wife, only for him to then see sense. So Dodsworth at least ends with a sliver of satisfaction, but there’s an awful lot of time spent en route with characters who are either entirely dislikeable or so lacking in judgement they may as well be.

Fran: All our friends think of me as young, and I am, I am.

One aspect that hasn’t aged, because it was evidently a pain on the eardrums at the time – if Graham Greene’s contemporary review is anything to go by – is the “almost incessant” music. It’s the equivalent of aural diarrhoea, sprayed indiscriminately across the soundtrack with wanton disregard for mood or, you know, actually enhancing a scene.

Fran: What’s going to become of me?
Sam: I don’t know. You’ll have to stop getting younger someday.

Dodsworth was nominated for seven Oscars, including Picture, Director, Actor (Huston), Supporting Actress (Ouspenskaya) and Screenplay. It won one, Art Direction for Richard Day. Few of the ten nominees carry much weight today, Mr. Deeds Goes to Town aside, and you’d likely not figure, coming to it cold, that Dodsworth had received such plaudits. Like its title character, the movie’s a bit of an old duffer, lacking self-awareness, youth and verve.


Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Do you know that the leading cause of death for beavers is falling trees?

The Interpreter (2005) Sydney Pollack’s final film returns to the conspiracy genre that served him well in both the 1970s ( Three Days of the Condor ) and the 1990s ( The Firm ). It also marks a return to Africa, but in a decidedly less romantic fashion than his 1985 Oscar winner. Unfortunately the result is a tepid, clichéd affair in which only the technical flourishes of its director have any merit. The film’s main claim to fame is that Universal received permission to film inside the United Nations headquarters. Accordingly, Pollack is predictably unquestioning in its admiration and respect for the organisation. It is no doubt also the reason that liberal crusader Sean Penn attached himself to what is otherwise a highly generic and non-Penn type of role. When it comes down to it, the argument rehearsed here of diplomacy over violent resolution is as banal as they come. That the UN is infallible moral arbiter of this process is never in any doubt. The cynicism